I wonder if it would work to have a tooltip for a city to display a list of improvements built for the city with how many of each. Then if you lock the tooltip open, when you hover over an item in the list it highlights them on the map. Or maybe some type of city panel or somethig.

You guys probably know this, but if you press and hold V, you’ll see your road network (the brightest green hexes). Whenever I’m thinking about roads, I do this as a matter of course. Darker roads might help, I dunno. I’ll probably still push V even with darker roads.

I agree that a list of stuff already built would be helpful. Maybe a tooltip over the capital hex, or better yet a dedicated hotkey?

It’s not necessarily bad to build multiple barracks! I do it all the time, so that I always have someone training behind the lines, and for the bonus training output and specialists. But then I tend to have relatively small empires. Two barracks in each of a dozen cities might be overkill, heh.

Yep, know that shows the connection, but water ways count too so it’s not strictly just the roads. But it is a good call out nonetheless.

robc04:

I wonder if it would work to have a tooltip for a city to display a list of improvements built for the city

Yep, something along these lines would be helpful.

Spock:

It’s not necessarily bad to build multiple barracks!

I’m trying this in current campaign, and of course getting military specialists.

Question: did we ever find out of certain nations are predisposed to a certain kind of behavior? This is my 2nd campaign in a row where Greece offered me an alliance (said no this time) and Rome is getting aggressive. So, does this just play off the way the campaign is playing out or are is there any hard wiring on behavior?

Question: did we ever find out of certain nations are predisposed to a certain kind of behavior? This is my 2nd campaign in a row where Greece offered me an alliance (said no this time) and Rome is getting aggressive. So, does this just play off the way the campaign is playing out or are is there any hard wiring on behavior?

I think Rome is naturally aggressive, I thought Assyria was also, but the last few games, they’ve got of to a slow start and haven’t been much of a factor.

I’m getting better at the game. Played as Egypt, strong. Finishing up ambition 7 it is only turn 78, and I have 17 points nearest competitor only has 8. Carthage declare war why I was fighting the Synchtian (sp) put up a decent fight.

I’m going to move up a level or two, then probably take a break and give them time to roll out an update or two.

I’m a bit surprised more Civ players aren’t playing this game.

Edit: After reading @spock AAR I’ll definitely be playing the GOTW. Put first I’m going to play Rome.

No definitive answer on whether particular nations are programmed to be more aggressive, though I’m still guessing the answer is yes. There’s been some inconclusive discussion on the Discord. Some say Persia and Assyria tend to be more aggressive, and I’ve seen some of that. Some say Rome is. In my own games, Babylonia has been very aggressive. Rome, on the other hand, has been a pussycat in my last couple games.

I just finished the Game of the Week (as Greece, on Magnificent level), with a Loss on Turn 191. I finished with 6 Ambitions, and I had two more in my sights, but I just ran out of time. I spent much of the game with 3 cities, but I did conquer a couple more in the last few decades. Even with 3 cities, I had a strong economy, and I could easily have finished my current Ambition (elders) and a legacy had I had more time. I’ve hidden my AAR in the details below, as I don’t want to spoil the Game of the Week until we have a new GOTW on, er, Monday is it?

AAR: Game of the Week

I grabbed Sparta (to the east) quickly, but then I had to defend against a Babylonian declaration of war (from the east) and a barbarian invasion (from the west). Around turn 30-40 I thought I was done for, as Babylonians besieged Sparta. But I managed to drive them back, while holding on against the barbs, and eventually made an expensive truce with Babylon. Rome, to my south, remained peaceful. Persia was a brooding menace to the northwest; I had to pay them off several times, with luxuries and the like. Eventually I grabbed a third city from the Thracians, I think, to the southwest. I lived with these three cities for most of the game, and I built up my economy and military. I even managed to build three Wonders: the Parthenon, the Acropolis, and Hagia Sophia.

By turn 130 or so I was strong enough that I started plotting to invade Rome. But then Assyria declared war on Babylonia, and Rome joined in with Assyria, so I decided to pile on against Babylonia. I drove to the gates of Babylon, but resistance stiffened as I encountered higher-tech units. As I mentioned earlier, this was the first time I really felt the force of tech disparity in Old World. It would take 6 or 7 of my Axemen and Archers to take down one enemy Polyboros. Babylonia repulsed me and drove me all the way back to the gates of Sparta, and once again I thought I was done for. But I held out, and we had a fun back-and-forth war for the next 70 years.

Finally Babylonia started to crumble, and I seized a couple of their cities, but in the meantime Persia, unmolested, had expanded and built most Wonders. Assyria, too, was piling up points by gobbling eastern Bablyonia. I had six Ambitions and an ailing leader, so I was hoping I’d get a couple easy quick new Ambitions once my Queen died. But it was not to be: Persia won, followed closely by Assyria with 28 points. I ended in third place on points (with 10 or 11, I forget) and 6 Ambitions.

I had a blast. The military campaign was the best 4X war I’ve fought since…Civ 4? I think the forced spacing of cities makes the military side of the game much more fun than Civ 5/6. Plus the AI is much much better here. Not perfect, but a lot better. (It maybe builds too many Ballistas?) It built and upgraded its units, and I was almost always facing superior troops. Really fun. I think I’ll play the next GOTW Monday.

I’ve been putting the beat down on the Danes in my current campaign because they were the closet to my other cities and so they made a natural target for getting more city sites. Interestingly last turn I took one of their cities and got a message by the Scythians that they were in an alliance with all Barbarians and I should stand down from attacking them. The reason I mention this is because one of the three options played out such that I got an alliance with Scythians so I can now use their units next turn.

The reason this so amuses me is because they are at war with Rome so I can attack Rome w/o dragging myself into a war with them directly.

This makes the barbarians more than just a group you knock out for sites or buffing units, they’re also potential allies who sort of are more useful than a major nation alliance because you get to use their units to attack others you’re not at war with. I wonder if they drag you into wars like Greece did my last campaign that went up in flames?!

Edit: killed a couple of Romans and then the Scythians decided to end our alliance, haha

Strollen:

Finishing up ambition 7 it is only turn 78, and I have 17 points nearest competitor only has 8.

I’m still lousy at this. I guess my play style is just war oriented. I mean I work on completing these but there’s no way I’d ever have 7 of them done by year 78. I’m at year 74 and have a whopping 3 done, haha. I really get fixated on relative military strength and build military probably a bit too much. Yet even with 20 units all of which have been promoted a couple times Rome still shows as stronger (everyone else is weaker).

they’re also potential allies who sort of are more useful than a major nation alliance because you get to use their units to attack others you’re not at war with.

I had no clue until Soren posted about it, and it’s great to see that you actually made use of this ability. Fun! Sort of like having privateers. :)

It’s interesting how different people treat the Ambitions. Me, if I see a quest staring me in the face, I … must … do … it. Maybe you should adopt Ambitions that are more suited to warmongering peace through strength.

Strollen:

I’ll definitely be playing the GOTW. Put first I’m going to play Rome.

Sounds good! I’ve been comparing notes with other players on the Discord, and it’s fun to see what other people do. Some people are much better at this game than I am. :)

I’ve been playing around with the settings, including randomizing the families for each nation. Which has led to my thinking about which families I think the best and the worst. So as a conversation starter, I thought I’d write down my list.

Champions - Clearly better than the other military families. If you can roll though the barbarians at the start and easily fend off tribes thoughout the game, the game is a ton easier. And that is what “Steadfast” does for you. And you get this in ALL of the family’s cities.

Sages - It’s not that tech dominates this game as it does so many 4X games, but it is one of the balls that requires juggling. And simply having inquiry in the family’s founding city pretty much takes care of your tech needs for the entire game. Especially if you make sure that city has strong civics. I just give them a good governor, and set inquiry to repeat endlessly.

Landowners - A bit situational, in that you have to have the right bonus tiles in the city, but it sure makes cranking out settlers and workers easy. A necessity for a quick start.

Clerics - Not having to worry about founding a religion is very, very nice, given how advantageous holy cities are for building wonders. Cheap disciples are nice, too, given how you can use them to add to your orders. But the clerics are nowhere near as good as the top 3 because they are a PITA, and for whatever reason, the other nations do not seem to grab a religion very quickly in this game.

Hunters - Offers almost as good a bonus to all ranged troops as Champions get against barbs. And ranged troops are decent in this game, not being horribly squishy. But there is no variety of ranged troop that can act as a big eraser against cavalry or infantry. Still, not a terrible military solution, and has some growth potential in cities with camps and nets.

Artisans - A distant sixth, but they offer several small benefits, the best of which is probably the +2 culture per city, which gets culture moving passively from the get-go. An initial worker is also helpful. The bonus to mines and lumbermills is marginal – if you have enough natural resources, it will hardly matter, and if you don’t have enough natural resources, 20% won’t solve the problem. It would be nice if the shortend time to build urban improvements applied beyond the founding city…

Traders - In my experience so far, money does not make this world go around.

Statemen - Bonuses doled out in such a manner that they never matter. You get +1 order per stateman city – but initally the one makes little difference, and by the time you get a second or a fourth, you find that once again you are at a point in the game that it does not matter much. Ditto with the civics, which I find the rarest thing to run short of. Actually, the initial treasury might be their most significant feature, but meh.

Riders - Outside of giving you an extra scout for the early game, a total disaster. The other nations build tons of Spears, turning your horses into dog food. And steadfast is so much better for dealing with barbs. A small amount of cavalry for mopping up rows of damaged units is great, but a cavalry based military is a disaster.

Crossing my fingers that someone is going to point out some big advantage to my lower ranks families, that I have missed up until now. :)

You’ve thought about families much more than I have; I haven’t even played with Landowners, Clerics, or Champions (which I admit sound strong with the Steadfast trait). So take my reactions with a big grain of salt. I think your list is a plausible starting point, but I have some doubts about it.

First, I’ve played with Sages and didn’t find them as strong as you, but then I didn’t run Inquiry as much as you; I always had other priorities. If and when I play them again, I’ll try your approach.

On Traders, I agree they are not the strongest of families, but don’t they give you some bonus relating to luxuries? (Incidentally, I just learned today that we can give luxuries to families or foreign powers, without waiting for events.) Luxuries become much more important on higher difficulty levels, where unrest is a constant worry. In my one game with Traders, I completely ignored the Caravan unit. I still don’t fully understand how it works.

I think you may also be undervaluing Statesmen. I need those precious orders on higher difficulty levels. One order was 5% of my entire order supply in my most recent game (on Magnificent). I also had trouble affording laws in that game; I couldn’t afford slavery, which I really needed. The treasury isn’t that great a bonus, but it doesn’t hurt either. I’ve noticed disagreement on the Discord about the value of Statesmen.

Finally, Riders have one big plus for the early game: they automatically connect your cities. The extra Scout is awesome in the early game. And enemies don’t always build Spearmen. In my most recent game, they hardly built any, even though I was cranking out horsemen and horse archers. I do agree that cavalry alone won’t win wars, but its mobility is great. I also felt its sting a few times: the AI loves to snipe my catapults with its horses, sometimes jumping well behind my front lines to get to my vulnerable artillery.

Anyway, I need to pay a lot more attention to families. I’m still wrapping my head around the various ways they interact with my empire.

I haven’t spent much time figuring out families yet. Besides the discontent mitigation for stationing the right family unit in a city, what other synergies are there? Is there a bonus for pairing governors and cities, or generals and units? Do family modifiers scale with opinion?

I need to spend more time reading the in-game 'pedia. The tooltips are great for seeing how things interact, but I’m still not clear on how I should be balancing the civics, culture, military points, etc.

I still haven’t won a game, as I keep restarting to work on early game mechanics. I feel like I have a decent grip on developing cities and working the market, but I’m still not very familiar with rushing production or specialists. (These were my weak points in Civ, too.)

And enemies don’t always build Spearmen. In my most recent game, they hardly built any

That’s interesting. I was getting a bit critical of the sameness of all nations going Spear in a big way. Sounds like I have just had weird luck.

Spock:

Riders have one big plus for the early game: they automatically connect your cities

I’d like this a lot better if they actually got roads. But travel is still slow, and if you have a city beyond the Rider city, connecting to the Rider city does not connect it to the capital. But yeah, I should probably value that more esp for early game.

I haven’t spent much time figuring out families yet. Besides the discontent mitigation for stationing the right family unit in a city, what other synergies are there? Is there a bonus for pairing governors and cities, or generals and units? Do family modifiers scale with opinion?

I need to spend more time reading the in-game 'pedia. The tooltips are great for seeing how things interact, but I’m still not clear on how I should be balancing the civics, culture, military points, etc.

I still haven’t won a game, as I keep restarting to work on early game mechanics. I feel like I have a decent grip on developing cities and working the market, but I’m still not very familiar with rushing production or specialists. (These were my weak points in Civ, too.)

While I have yet to really dive into the family stuff, I find them such a more engaging way to do something akin to Civ 6 governors but with a fun political/factional twist.

I just won a game with Egypt on Magnificent where I started with Landowners, I like the ability to pump out lots of settlers early. My second city was military to start clearing out the barbarians. The different families combined with the 3 different local production-rate limiters (growth, training, and civics) do a good job of getting me to specialize my cities, something I usually mean to do in Civ but don’t manage to pull off.

I just won a game with Egypt on Magnificent where I started with Landowners, I like the ability to pump out lots of settlers early. My second city was military to start clearing out the barbarians. The different families combined with the 3 different local production-rate limiters (growth, training, and civics) do a good job of getting me to specialize my cities, something I usually mean to do in Civ but don’t manage to pull off.

I think that’s why I like Egypt the best the 50% river bonus and having 3 specialist families is really good. I’ve moved up to Glorious and somewhat struggling as Persia. I had good starting position but really struggled a bit with research, and I haven’t had an ambassador for years, because of early death of my monarch, but I think I can pull of a win.

Magnificent win is impressive. It is really nice to play a 4x game where it is a challenge to win.

One thing, I’ve determined is that it is no fluke Civ IV, had some of the best AI in a strategy game. Outer Worder trading company was good, and Older Worlds is surprisingly good for an early release.@SorenJohnson is one hell of an AI programmer.

I’m not as thrilled with Champions as you are. I think I’d rather have a 20% bonus that’s good for everything that the 25% that only good against barbarians, although at admittedly you spend the first 1/2 of the game fight them. The 25% bonus for you founding city in a good location with mines makes for a powerhouse military city. I think Hunters is close to as good, but only if you are in location with several camps or nets, odds are good you’ll have one of those places in your first 3 city locations. You’ll generally have either wood or food, so you can build a good military with slings or archer early on.
So I’d put Hunter a bit a head of champions for a builder country and behind for a war like country.

As builder, I think Landowners are the best being able to quickly get growth up and 50% cost for specialist up to expand your borders makes it really easy to get your economy up… Sages and Clerics are both very important, I’d put clerics a tad a head of sages but is close.
Some my #4 and 5 are Hunters and Champions.
I agree with with your 6-9, Traders, Statemen,and Riders are all pretty. Riders are definitely better than the other two if you don’t have rivers and coasts.